Hands-on with new Panasonic Leica Summilux 12mm F1.4 ASPH

Hands-on: Panasonic Leica Summilux 12mm F1.4 ASPH

Panasonic has just announced a new prime lens for Micro Four Thirds. The Lumix G Leica DG Summilux 12mm F1.4 ASPH is a metal-bodied prime that provides an equivalent focal length of 24mm in full-frame terms. We've got one in our hands, and we've got pictures to prove it!

When this lens first came out, I wrote it off. Mostly due to cost and FL as I'd prefer wider. Then pictures started showing up and I've read more on it. They are spectacular. Even comparing it to the loxia 21mm 2.8- I see no major improvements. Keep in mind, lots of folks are dropping 1500 for the 21mm and slapping it on a A7S.

My point is, I've had an A7 system for about a year along side my M43. I have thousands of shots from it and an A7II. I just do not see a major difference if you have the right glass.

If you consider the whole system, it's an excellent option if the FL is something you need along with the speed. Doesn't mean every lens will be fast and massive- but you can scale out the system without restriction. I do believe this is worth it. Biggest gripe is lack of compatability with focusing ring on Oly bodies. Nothing is perfect, but this gets the system a few steps closer IMO.

I never talk "equivalent" focal length except when explaining to a newbie or an older person who never had a FULL frame Mamiya RB-67 ..AOV - it determines the perspective "look" of an image..This lens is nice, but I'm hoping for an 8mm f/2,8 Zuiko :).Being 1,4 you get reasonably good DOF wide open and a four times higher shutter speed than a 2,8 lens would give you. FOUR times In fact it would be noticeably superior for hand-held shots and the focus advantages of a 2-stops-brighter-than-2,8 lens are irrefutable.Not "equivalent" is it?.Shallow dof is not everything. It is mostly the last bastion of the "full" marketing frame crowd. .84 degree diagonal AOV and f/1,4 simple as that..I'll stick with my 12mm f2.0 - tiny, very good, between 1/3 and 1/2 the weight/size of f/2.0 CaNikSon lenses would be..A shame the "full" marketing frame tr0lls don't like their gear enough to actually take pictures. Why else would they waste on competing format fora??

I wonder how many people keep saying "a 100mm lens is a 100mm lens whatever the sensor"... while at the same time saying "my compact camera has a 24-70mm lens" (instead of "my compact camera has a 8.8-25.7mm lens").

I actually see the equivalency in DOF to a FF 24mm f/2.8 as a positive feature of this m4/3 12mm f/1.4 lens, for its use as a landscape lens. For astrophotography for instance this provides a greater depth of field (11.15 ft to infinity at the hyperfocal distance) compared to 22.3 ft to infinity for a FF 24mm lens at f/1.4. This enables rock or landscape features reasonably close to the lens to remain in focus with the stars. But while this lens may be equivalent in DOF to a FF 24 mm f/2.8, its wide aperture of 1.4 aperture makes it a positive option for Milky Way photography because 30 second shots at ISO 1600 are possible, while the FF 24mm f/2.8 is best shot with an ISO of 3200.

You seem to have missed it. The DOF at 12mm f/1.4 on mFT is the same as the DOF at 24mm f/2.8 on FF, so that's a non-issue if you need features closer than 20 ft away to be in focus. The light gathering is the same at the same DOF, too.

The advantage that the 12 / 1.4 on mFT *may* have over 24mm f/2.8 on FF is if it has less coma. However, we will have to wait for lens tests to see if this is the case.

I was stating that I appreciate that the DOF is greater for the m4/3 12mm f/1.4 than for a FF 24 f/1.4 and expect to take advantage of this difference.I also understand that the total light gathering is a similar discussion compared to DOF but I would also expect the light per unit area on the sensor to not be the same for a 24mm f/2.8 on FF versus a 12mm f/1.4 on m4/3. Thus for FF to get the same exposure for an image shot at 12mm f/1.4 on m4/3 at 1/60 s, the FF 24mm f/2.8 would require a 1/30 s exposure (for equivalently specified sensors only differing in size). Doesn't the same f stop and shutter speed provide the substantially similar exposures to similarly specified sensors that only vary in size due to camera format. This was certainly true in the film world for the sunny 16 rule when 1/ASA at f16 was a correct exposure in sunlight regardless if whether were shooting a large format 5x7 or a small format 35mm.

Here's the thing, though: exposure is a meaningless metric in cross format comparisons. What matters, in terms of noise, is the total amount of light recorded by the sensor. As it so happens, and not coincidentally, photos of the same scene with the same DOF and exposure time will put the same amount of light on the sensor.

So, if we are talking about the 12 / 1.4 on mFT vs a 24 / 1.4 on FF, then the 24 / 1.4 on FF has the following advantages:

1) If motion blur is a non-issue, then FF can shoot the same DOF as mFT and record 4x as much light by using 4x the exposure time (e.g. 12mm f/1.4 1/800 on mFT vs 24mm f/2.8 1/200 on FF).

2) If motion blur is an issue, FF has the *option* of using a more shallow DOF and putting 4x as much light on the sensor (e.g. 12mm f/1.4 1/100 on mFT vs 24mm f/1.4 1/100 on FF), getting the same DOF and light on the sensor (e.g. 12mm f/1.4 1/100 on mFT vs 24mm f/2.8 1/100 on FF), or any combination in between.

@NM EM1shooter "because 30 second shots at ISO 1600 are possible, while the FF 24mm f/2.8 is best shot with an ISO of 3200" your reasoning is perfect, with the exception that you have to apply noise equivalence, where ISO1600 on m43 is equivalent to ISO3200 on FF. You gain no more DoF, but because it is a $1300 lens, I guess the IQ quality of your 24mm/f2.8 (FF EQ) photos wide open will be stellar.

@Great Bustard "the noise is determined by the total amount of light recorded, not the ISO setting."

Brilliantly, explains Noise equivalence.

"The advantage of the mFT setup is that the *system* is smaller, lighter, and less expensive overall, which matters much more to many (most) than the noise/DOF options that FF offers."

For the kind of street shooting I do, for a 14mm or wider lens, f2.8 hits a sweet spot between low-light performance, smaller lens size, optical quality and lower cost. I can see why you'd want f1.4 for astrophotography, but that's my not my thing, hence I don't wish for one. I happily accept that Panasonic understand their market, and that making a 12mm f1.4 lens makes more sense than making the lenses I want. I admitted so in my original comment. Doesn't stop me wanting something different.

A thumb down for this lens at $1300us. Guessing it will cost @1700cad. I will continue using my Oly 12/2 and FT 11-22/2.8-3.5 on the EM-1. Panasonic people keep shooting themselves in the wallet by providing an aperture ring incompatible with the Olympus bodies. No, thanks.

@rialcnis: the standard way to operate the aperture on the MFT system is with the dials on the camera body. Most likely the aperture ring on this lens is not mechanically coupled, but instead sends signals through some unused mount contacts to the body, and the body reacts to these signals instead of a dial. If this communication is not a part of the MFT specification, then the Oly may not want to , or be able to update their cameras to respond to them. Or may be it will do so later!

rialcnis: The OP didn't say the "lens" was incompatible with Oly bodies. He said the "aperture ring" was incompatible with Oly bodies. These are two quite different statements. As pointed out by Vlad S, the aperture ring is electronic (rather than mechanical) and Oly bodies do not have the firmware to support this. This is not the first Panasonic lens to have an aperture ring incompatible with Olympus bodies. It might actually be a blessing, though, as the rings tend to get jolted and change aperture at inconvenient times.

Hmm. So this lens has a dedicated aperture ring, but it wont work with Olympus-bodies. Why can't Olympus and Panasonic standardize this behavior for m4/3-system? How is potential buyer suppose to know this?

It works with Olympus bodies just fine. You just don't use it at all. The aperture is controlled like every other lens attached to those cameras. The ring is fly by wire. It's not actually connected physically to the lens's aperture.

Use google translate for this sentence: "Jostain syystä Panasonic on ottanut himmenninrenkaan käyttöön joissakin objektiiveissa ja näin on myös Summiluxissa. Olympuksen runkojen kanssa himmenninrengas ei toimi, vaan aukko säädetään kamerasta." It's not a good translation, but you should get the point: Some Panasonic-lenses have a dedicated aperture ring, but that does not work with the Olympus-body. Insted with Olympus-bodies, you must change the aperture from the body itself.

I will say the PL25 1.4 I've had for some time has lovely bokeh, not really seen in other fast M43 lenses. To me, that's the primary reason to pay extra to get this lens. That PL25 has been one of my all time favorites.

I use the Panasonic 7-14 for shooting landscapes, so f/2.8 is redundant for me given that it would mean carrying extra weight around for a lens that will be stopped down anyway. The Panny 7-14 does have outstanding image quality.

Roger that, I am a big fan of the 12mm and primes in general, and it has the virtue of enabling me to use ND grad filters,Some say it's a tad soft at the edge of the frame. Perhaps I have a good copy as it is tack sharp from F4, and I love the MF collar. I keep hearing that Olympus is working on a 12 mm f1:2. If correct it will likely be just as expensive as the Panasonic 12mm 1:4 if not more so,. Given how pleased I am with my 12mm I would struggle to justify the cost of replacing it, and more beside the 7/14 mm covers all other bases save filters. As you say it would be nice to have the extra speed.

no the oly 12mm f2 is very good .... but perhaps i overstate .... no i totally exaggerated ..... respect ..... the beast i claimed is 10 times the size is in fact about 3 time s the weight and appx 4 times the "size " [ volume wise as volumetric stepped cylinders] clearly ive been exaggerating and accept your chastisement

i stand by and accept your corrections fellow forum members , however i still think this is beastly large from the photos i see

and i own the panny 7-14 and i concur its very good ... i didnt realize the oly 12 had the corner sharpness issues claimed .... i guess i never peeped the perimeter .. i really love tiny lenses on micro 43 bodies .... thats why i use the slower 20mm 1.7 panny over the 25mm 1.4 panleica frequently thiough is slow as a dog to focus sometimes ... maybe this explains why i love the 12mm oly f2 .... its genuinely tiny compares to the 1.4 in question has a beautiful metal buils and a really nice hard stopped manual focus ring

People should stop this nonsense with equivalence of DOF. When I used to shoot medium format no one talked about equivalent apertures with 35 mm. It might have been mentioned that DOF is reduced on medium format. If the format you use doesn't give you enough blurry backgrounds to your liking then change formats. But DOF is not the measure of everything about a format size. These people always emphasizing equivalence is just nonsense.

Well, the thing is, it's not nonsense to compare different formats based on lenses that have the same [diagonal] angle of view, produce photos with the same DOF, and put the same total amount of light on the sensor for a given exposure time.

If you have no interest in angle of view, DOF, and/or light gathering, then that is your prerogative. However, these things do tend to matter to a lot of other people.

Matters only to gear heads who couldn't take a decent shot if their life depended on it. Do you even use M4/3? Why the comparison? Do you do that with cars as well? You buy something, and use it to get the most out of it. Who cares how my gear "compares" to another format? Go out and take some more pictures. THAT may improve your snap shots. Arguing about non sense will never gets you better results.

Looks great. If it's anything like the 42.5/1.2 PL then I'll likely get one at some point when the price is a bit lower.Still looking for a 20/1.2 PL from Pany - now that would be a killer lineup:12/1.420/1.242.4/1.2

those along with the most excellent 75/1.8 Oly and it's a killer combo for us m43 users. Small and light - not so much, but the fast AF and excellent across the frame sharpness of these lenses (assuming a hypothetical 20/1.2 would be equally sharp) is awesome to work with.

Yes, m43 is not as clean as APS-C or FF, but it's more than good enough for much of what I like to do and the AF reliability for me has been fantastic compared to my D800 & AF Nikkors.

Not for everyone for sure, but for those that can use these types of lenses they are great stuff.

@kentique and samtheman2014 My problem with the 20 1.7 is the horizontal banding in low light, it can be so bad that I returned the lens. In many other regards, the 20 1.7 is the perfect m43rds companion, so I also want them to improve it in a new model.

Try doing candid / street photography in low light with the 20mm. The focus is so slow that you'll often miss the decisive moment. I switched the the Panasonic Leica 15mm for just that reason, and the difference is night and day. Took a while to get used to the new focal length but now it seems natural.

@samtheman2014 Don't get me wrong, I love the 20mm and its on my OMD 90% of the time, and for most of what I do, the speed is fine. But looking at the relatively wide casing(relative to the small elements), I don't see why they can't put in an updated, faster and silent motor. Its good enough, but it can be great. I love the 40mm(equiv) FL, but unfortunately I don't think mft companies including pana will be releasing a weathersealed 20mm :(

@chj I shoot at night and I didn't know if the banding was a widespread issue until it happened at high ISO. Its such a strange issue, and pana should fix that somehow.

@D Horne And I think the difference is ever so slight - it sounds and feels like a slow focus, but in reality the difference between a snappy lens and the 20mm is perhaps fraction of a second- but enough for you to potentially miss the moment. The 15mm is an awesome lens, panny needs to come out with a interchangeable mount version of the LX100 to accompany that lens.

chj - I shoot low-light events professionally with this lens on a GX7, often at ISO 1600 & 3200, I process RAW, and I've never seen this mythical horizontal banding so many speak of. I wonder if it's specific to a particular body or RAW developer, or camera settings.

Nope. I just carefully examined ISO 3200 shots with 20mm & GX7 at local concert, and none of them show banding. I've made thousands of other shots with this combo at up to ISO 6400, and I've never noticed banding.

@Lassoni - This is simply not true. 12/1.4 will sell about twice as many copies as a 12 t/s, which is very specialized due to likely being a smaller aperture (f/3.5 or so rather than f/1.4) and manual focus only. Nikon has sold just over 17,000 copies of their 24mm f/3.5 t/s since it was released in Jan 2008 and 34,000 copies of their 24mm f/1.4 since it was released in Jan of 2010.

Talk about specialized! Who needs such a wide aperture on a WA lens? ...very few, I'm guessing, especially at that price. I think it's an attempt to compensate for the loss of quality at higher ISO settings, but IBIS already handles that quite admirably. Olympus is going down the same misguided path IMO.

T-S lens technology could be advanced to include selective autofocus, motorized movements, and coordinated sensor shift. Nobody knows the potential sales, but I would bet that, if it were designed right and priced similarly, it would sell more. Perspective control, focus distribution, and bokeh enhancement are all available in a T-S lens, and wider apertures are not needed. Focus distribution would take advantage of the superior sharpness at wider apertures, as opposed to the need to stop down for many subjects. I think the demand would follow from positive user experiences, as usually is the case.

Yes, there's the small Oly 12mm f2.0 for about $700. There's the tiny Pany 14mm f2.5 pancake for under $200. There's the Kowa 12mm f1.8 manual focus lens for about $800. There's the Voigtlander 10.5mm f0.95 manual focus lens for around $1000. And there are close to a dozen zooms that cover the 12mm focal length with prices from under $200 to over $1000.

$ 800 for the olympus 24 mm is expensive for what it is. If they made an F2.8 version it would be cheaper. They could cut 300 bucks off the price. Most of the times you need a wide angle lens you need depth of field. So they should have a good quality and relatively cheap F2.8 version just like the 28 mm F 2.8 Panasonic lens. There are people like me who don't want to spend even $800 on a 24 mm prime. I'd opt for an12 - 35 f2.8 zoom before I spent that much on a wide angle prime.

Yes, most of these new lenses are quite expensive compared to the well-established and quite decent lenses of yesteryear. At the same time, a cup of coffee is about $5 now, so for the cost of a couple hundred cups of coffee, that lens doesn't seem so expensive anymore, does it? ;-)

BTW - Oly does not make a 24mm lens, and Pany doesn't make a 28mm f2.8 lens ... Oly makes a 12mm f2 and Pany makes a 14mm f2.5.

Lastly, if you need better low light capability, then Sony and Nikon have great bodies available to help you. The presence of one solution does not negate the value of another.

Yup. This sure is an expensive lens ... but I don't know of any wide fast lens that's not expensive ...

Anyhow, quite tempting. If Oly had put the aperture ring on their 12mm lens, it probably would've been a much easier decision. But after using Pana 15mm lens with the aperture ring on the lens, I really have no desire to use lenses without them.

One doesn't need to get into the comments very far to see the circle-jerking is real here - insert Sony blah blah blah (who keeps letting the children out of the Sony forums?), the Samsung S7 lens is the same (apparently the amount people showing off their lack of intelligence is growing), in FF equivalent.... (yawn), and on and on and on it goes.

Boring! How about putting some pictures in your gallery and entering the odd challenge? Oh snap, there's a reason for that.

I find it genuinely odd that the most rampant fanboys defenders of the m43 faith are almost all former FT owners which given Olympus abandoned that system is a little peculiar. By the way sorry but I post on the m43 forum, I post photos and I do have a gear list

C'mon guys. Print some pix from any cam you have and then talk... It's you not the cam.It's you again and not printer...And if you, by mistake, visit a photography exhibition ask the guys there or the photographer(s) exhibiting what gear they used.You 'll be the finger pointed guy of the night.Which is rather desirable for you, admit it...

Been awhile since I've witnessed a flame war of this magnitude around here. And that's saying something.

This lens exists. This is better for everyone than if it did not exist. Hooray!

Who cares that it doesn't tempt me away from my D600 and Zeiss 25/2.8? Certainly not anyone who is considering buying this PanaLeica. If you are invested in a small format ILC, you've already faced up to the fact that equivalent wide-of-standard lenses are going to come at a premium. You can choose to invest in and use a larger format when you need to, you can choose to bite the bullet and take slower, smaller equivalent lenses, or, now, joy, you have the option to buy your way out of the problem.

It's win all around. There is nothing for anyone to get upset about here.

Most interchangeable cameras have at least one 24mm equivalent lens. Nikon and Canon each have a handful as well, also going down to f/1.4. Heck, even Sony, always the mount with the fewest native lenses, has one.

The premium 24mm equivalents will be sharper, have fewer optical aberrations, and be less software corrected than the lens in your phone. In other words, better.

All of these lenses can be mounted on bodies that shoot faster, shoot longer, and shoot in lower light than a phone. Many of these bodies have better video, and most have better AF.

I laugh at anybody trying to shoot on their phone at twilight. I shake my head at anybody trying to use a phone inside a ballroom. And I'm facepalming at you right now.

You must be the guy who thinks a Corolla is the same as a Ferrari "because they're both red".

Actually if you're going to compare a phone camera to a M43 camera, it's more like a $15 remote control car compared to a Ferrari. They both look like cars and they both move. That's about where the similarities end.

The point of producing the lens is to give owners of a m43 camera one more lens to choose from. To my knowledge, the Galaxy S7 doesn't mount to a m43 camera, so bringing it up here is completely irrelevant.

Hate the price but this lens will be joining my kit as soon as it arrives. Yes it's huge and expensive, and I own and love the Oly 12mm f2. But at another focal length, 42.5mm, I have both the f1.2 and f1.7. The look of images shot at f1.2 is beautiful, it's my standard lens for nightclub or recording shoots, where there's nothing BUT distracting backgrounds and low light. The f1.7, though, is in my every day bag because it's small, light, and at f2 or f2.8, every bit as sharp as the f1.2. When I got the f1.7, it was to be part of my every day small camera four primes kit, and if I thought the difference wasn't much to the f1.2, I would sell the f1.2. I've not sold it...

Wish that they'd done an f1.2 (or f1.4, I suspect getting to f1.2 would be absurdly heavy and large) at the 35mm equivalent focal length, though. That and 85mm equivalent are my two most frequently used work lenses. 24mm equivalent is a close third, though.

I'm still amazed that people think m43 should not have premium lenses.

There are already plenty of small and cheap options within the m43 system and this is what I love about it, you can go from the tiny GM1 with 12-32mm or 20mm 1.7 right up to workhorse cameras like the GH4+12-35mm or EM1 with something like the 300mm f4... don't want to spend much? m43 has been around long enough to have a great market of second-hand cameras that can be picked up for peanuts; want great optics, get something like the 75mm 1.8 or 42.5mm 1.2.

m43 will always be a little behind in image quality, but absolute image quality is not what everyone needs. For example, I was out with the camera club the other night and there were some great crepuscular rays building on the horizon... my friend who uses a D810 didn't bring his 70-200mm lens as he didn't want to carry it, I had my 45-150mm in the bag, hence I got the shot.

We all have our own limits and this is 12mm far too expensive for me , but if you have the cash and want it then why not? No-one is forcing you to buy it, and if the pricing is that ridiculous then no-one will buy it and the price will be forced to come down.

I recently got the 12-35mm f2.8 for £300, it was priced at around £1,000 when it first came out... time or money, your choice.

That's one other problem with mft, lenses don't seem to hold their value at all for some odd reasons. No-one will buy one (unlike other platforms) unless you're selling it for <50% of retail.

Highly capable lenses for MFT are basically a waste of time. There's no doubt the lenses are great, but the way the system is structured, most of the premium lenses don't make a whole lot of sense given what they're focusing down onto.

It's bad for previous/current owners who want to sell the lens later, yes. Funny that a major retailer in my country still is selling 42.5 f1.2 for 1800 euros, while on grey market ebay (within european union, so no customs needed to pay) it's 1000 euros (new), and even on bphotovideo it's 1400 USD.

It's similar story with 35-100 f2.8 . It cost 1450 on retailer, and on ebay it's 700 euros (also new). Makes wonder what's the point on throwing good money away? The new 100-400 is 2k on retailer and 1600 on ebay.

@ Lassoni - it just sounds like pricing in your country is set wrong. I can sell you the Panny 35-100 f/2.8 for $1000 US new all day long and make a profit.

Compared to US sale pricing, used prices are actually quite high. I bought my 75mm used for $525, it's available refurbed for <$600, and new for $800. I think those are very fair steps down, from both a buyer and a seller's perspective. The $900 12-40 is available for $700 refurbed, and $600 used, as well.

It's only bad if you see a lens as an investment... I buy lenses to use them, surely the point of owning a lens is to create images with it?

If I buy a car, I don't expect to sell it for the same amount years later; if I buy a new TV I don't expect to sell it for the same amount; what about a phone? a suit? or even a camera body for that matter?

Remember that NOTHING has an intrinsic value; a lens is an inanimate object after all, it's a simple supply and demand scenario, things will only remain expensive when there is more demand than supply.

It's true, that hobby stuff loses value, but some stuff just loses value a little bit too much imo. The D810 body for example costed 3100 EUR new, and right now one needs luck to be able to sell it used even for 1700. 2200 new grey market model within same area (thus no customs) probably hurts it too.

But weathersealing is not a "must have" for many people, not even all pros need it (I think Matt Granger has mentioned he's fan of Tamron?). That's why Tamron has been able to stay competitive in FF with their 24-70 and 70-200 that are significantly cheaper than Canikon.

A 24mm F/1.4 is equivalent to a 12mm F/0.7 on m43. You can use a 28mm F2.8 on the FF to match what the Panasonic 12mm F/1.4 can do. As a side note the Nikon 28mm F1.8G does have dust and moisture sealing at around $600 and when mounted on a FF camera will comfortably outperform even the very best m43 lenses

It’s true that getting more light on a smaller sensor gets exponentially difficult to achieve. But it’s obvious that most folks know about the implications a smaller sensor has, it’s no accident you use it but a choice you make. If MFT had suddenly focused on fast glass and that was central to the system you’d understand the criticism.

If Panasonic really optimised it for night time and stars photography as they claim in the press release, than the equivalence argument is moot.

Most, if not all* full-frame 24mm lenses suffer from massive coma and need to be stopped down to f/2.8 to get reasonably looking stars. In short, they are useless wide open for this use case. If Panasonic handles coma well, than the price is actually in line with what the equivalence tells you it should be. Which is $1300 and up for a lens usable at f/2.8 equivalent (at least for first party manufacturers).

*At least all the 24mm primes tested by Lenstip suffer from this, maybe there are some they did not test that handle this better.

That's a good point. The Samyang 24 / 1.4 is widely regarded as having excellent coma control wide open, but the Lenstip tests shows it to be mediocre, at least to my eyes. If the 12 / 1.4 has excellent coma right from wide open, then, absolutely, it would an excellent option for an astrophotographer.

However, the Tamron 15-30 / 2.8 VC is pretty good wide open, costs a bit less, and gives the photographer the option of zoom. Of course, not only is it much larger and heavier, but you have to attach it to a larger and heavier FF body, too.

Why faster and faster, bigger and beefier? For dof control, for light gathering ability? But then put it on an Olympus EM1 and the combo weights and costs as much as one of the smaller FF bodies with a 24mm. Nikon 610 or Nikon DF & Nikor 24 f1.8, Sony A7II & 25mm f2 Batis. And file quality and dof control are of a different planet.

It's never a bad thing to provide more options for people who have already made their choice of system. The alternatives you mentioned might be interesting to someone who's choosing between systems, but a lot of people have made their choice and are just busy taking photos.

Why would they? It's their glass people covet, not their antiquated bodies; and they don't make these lenses anyway, they collaborate in design with Panasonic at best but they're made in Japan by Panny... Leica doesn't make sensors either, so besides making a simplified/overpriced body for purists there'd be little point in making a M4/3 body that would just trade on their name. Then again, you could say the same of the rebranded Panasonic P&S cameras they do sell so what do I know...

They did, early on. Called the Digilux-3, it was a rebadged Panasonic L1 4/3 body. Beautiful to look at, but you were paying a very hefty premium for a brushed stainless steel covering and a red dot, for something that was really no better than the L1.

The lenses they made for that body, though: 25 1.4, and a 14-150 superzoom that actually lived up to the promise, were very special.

We leave the maths aside. try to shoot with a FF that has a CROP mode. Mount the camera (same lenses) on a tripod and do not change any settings (ISO, aperature, focus, etc) other then FF mode and CROP mode. Then u compare the 2 photos. U will realised that the exposure is the same. Which means that this f1.4 m43 lenses is not equal to a F2.8 FF lenses.

If u r still have doubts then try a crop lenses on the FF and repeat the same experiment again. Result is the same.

You're cutting out a huge amount of real life variables here.What if the outer parts of the full frame were highlighty areas and the centre of the frame was a shadowed area?In this situation the FF mode will capture more light than the crop mode, and the recommended exposure reading from the meter would be different (assuming it's not set to spot or partial meter mode)

Yes @ TheDecExp ... Thats it Its all about DOF.Amount of light should be equal with respect to sensor size.Thats why FF lenses are more bigger and M43 compact.Right ? Wait for GH5 it will allow for 2X focal reduction with speed booster ( I dream Ha Ha } and that will put an end to all comparison. Not only more light but also same FF DOF look...

@fmian, if you know that then it is good. if the reverse happens, then apc-s will receive more light? I think you can try a simple one by shooting at a plain white wall. Anyway. I never believe too until i own the a7 and tried out this experiment.

Consider this DOF is the distance between the nearest and the furthest objects giving a focused image.

With the same experiment, use a7 mount any lenses. place a measuring tape on the floor (example 1 metre measuring tape). Tilt downwards mounted on a tripod and just focus one point on the measuring tape (maybe at the 50cm mark). then finally take a photo with both FF and Crop mode.

U will realised that the area in focus for both the full frame and the crop is the same.

@kpaddler, first off you're underestimating the usefulness of getting an overall exposure reading in many situations outside auto point and shoot. If you can't see this.. then the less you know...Secondly, having to meter for specific elements within the frame is the kind of scenario that breaks the example that waitformee gave.. which was the point of what I originally said - so are we going in circles with this or what?

Applying crop mode may require a change of exposure settings. ie. A larger format with the same mm lens will see more. Obviously.

You expose for the subject, you could average for a couple of spots but overall exposure is adjusted in post production, not when you are taking the picture. That applies even you are an experienced jpg shooter.

Panasonic, like Sony, has learned that it is not possible to make a compact, cheap, and fast good lens without a huge compromise. So, the dream of compact light weight mirrorless camera and lens setup are vanishing in the haze. Help, I need Canon!

Ehh? Then what is Batis and the Tamron's new primes about? They're showing that it's possible to create lenses that perform better than Nikon 1.8 G series lenses, while also weighting about the same. How is that not a good achievement, when recently all the stuff has been sigma's 1.4 art lenses, which weight more than other lenses ??

Or, maybe, just maybe, the dream of compact mirrorless lenses was already fulfilled within the M4/3 catalog which is LITTERED with great choices at sizes that no APS-C system has matched; and so they're moving on to something else.

No other ILC system has a combination as compact and versatile as say, GM1 + 9-18 + 12-32 + 35-100 + 20/1.7 + pickoneoftheotherdozen2"primes... Seriously, there's very few holes to fill as far as slower/smaller lenses are concerned, go take a look.

I'm actually quite happy with the lenses I've got and I'm very happy both Panasonic and Oly seem to be focused on super fast primes now (rumors of Oly's f1.2 line keep swirling), now just make a damn 17mm please.

Oly's 12/2, 17/1.8, 25/1.8 & 45/1.8 along with Panny's 25/1.7 & 42.5/1.7 are all around 2" x 2" or smaller btw. The 9-18 & the slow 35-100 (Oly & Pana respectively) are only a little larger.

Going smaller, Panasonic's 12-32 & 20/1.7 are a terrific pancake combo, as is the 14/2.5... Even lenses like the PL25/1.5 and Sigma's 60/2.8 or Samyang's superb FE are relatively small. Heck, the 12-35 f2.8 & 14-140 from Panasonic are the size of an average DSLR kit zoom.

If you want small, M4/3 has already got you covered, and then some. Add to that the fact that you can pick from a variety of body styles and sizes, from GM1 to E-M1...

Complaining that a single high end lens ruins the existing system or betrays the ideals is like complaining that Porsche ruined the brand with the Panamera and Cayenne, when all they did was make them a boatload of money.

This is the most useless lens for m43, right after olympus macro 30 3.5 or whatever the new lens is.

Why? Because it creates huge disharmony. This lens has nothing to do with a m43, it's just too big. I can understand 42.5 f1.2 , because it's a portrait lens, there's actual need for wide aperture lenses for portraiture.. but I seriously don't see the need in wider-than-1.8 12mm lens.

You know what would make lots of more sense? A 90 or 100mm macro lens for some insect macro, or a 12mm T-S lens or something. If they want make 12mm prime, they could've kept it 1.8 or 2 , keep it smaller and lighter than Nikon 24 1.8 .. why would you want a FF size prime lens on a m43 ??? Might as well get a Sony a7 at that point imo

As a M4/3 user that appreciates the way the system can scale in either direction, I strongly disagree. Moreover, there's probably still a larger market for a fast weather sealed prime than for a TS lens... You might have a point about longer macros tho.

I can tell you I'll be first in line for an equivalent f1.2 or f1.4 lens at 17mm or 18mm, even tho my kit currently revolves largely around the smallest lenses in the system... I think a lot of people that didn't buy into larger f2.8 zooms, who currently have smaller/slower zooms and/or the cheaper primes, might stretch for something like this.

That being said, $1,300 is pushing it a bit. I'd pay it (for an 18mm), but i dunno if others would. I think closer to $1,000 is more reasonable, all things considered (other systems as well as the price of existing primes).

BS. For me, it's the lens I waited for. It's a bit too expensive for my taste (I can actually afford it, I just have trouble justifying spending that kind of money on a lens so specialised).

But if it handles coma well (and there's some indication that it does), than it's actually worth it. It might not seem like it, but once you see how full-frame 24mm lenses behave wide open, than you will understand that there is no image quality advantage (at least for the astro landscapes, which is what I would use such a lens for), and the size disadvantage is huuge. Even with this lens, MFT wins on compactness: http://j.mp/1UAgGHz

Besides, nobody is forcing you to buy those bigger MFT lenses. There is already plenty of choice of small and lightweight ones, including some truly tiny ones.

You have to get very close to subject, meaning there's big risk you get in contact with subject / get some dirt on the lens, scare the insect, or you get in the way of the light (assuming no flash or such used). I don't think you can shoot even flowers very well because of the fact you get close and might create shadow.

I have the Olympus 35mm 3.5 macro and apart from the focal lenght I think it is a really fine lens. It is cheap, lightweighted, gives very high magnigication ratio and good image quality. And sometimes it is not desired to capture small things with a long focal lenght because they might look flat and dull. I like that lens, but if you are in macro fotografie it should not be your only macro lens.

A small tracking mount at $300 might make more sense for astro no? Dunno, Scott has far more experience than I ever will. The mount I found is on my wishlist for now, as I already have the 12/2 and my first preference for a fast sealed prime would be 17-18mm.

Astro landscapes. I tried Samyang 12/2 and that was pretty nice, but another stop would be very welcomed.

Ideally, Sigma 20/1.4 and a Nikon FX body would be much better for this use, but spending 2300 EUR minimum just for that makes even less sense than buying this Panasonic. Since I have zero use for FF outside this particular scenario, it makes no sense at all and this Panasonic is the way to go.

Still, the price is hard to swallow. If they deliver on the promises, I'll bite, but probably once the price drops by 100-200 EUR. The jury is still out on this one.

@NZ Scott: "Adding full-frame gear just to shoot astro would require spending thousands of dollars on a new, heavy body and fast prime lens, not to mention having to lug it all around (I shoot astro when hiking)."

for the money for this lense, you can buy a decent FF camera, fast AF is not important here, with a samyang lense, what is some kinde of standard in the milkyway field. so I would not speak about thousands of dollars in this case.

Samyang 24/1.4 is 600 EUR. Can you tell me where I can buy an FF camera for less than 700 EUR? No matter how I look, the kit you are talking about costs 2000 EUR. So yeah, this is thousands. And definitely more than this lens alone costs.

Or are we talking "used gear on ebay from hong-kong that fell off the truck" kind of deals?

How will I have a better high ISO performance? Does equivalence not work for Sony?

At f/2.8, all benefits of FF sensor go out the window. Not to mention the lack of proper RAW format. And astrophotography is one of the very few scenarios where the artifacts caused by lossy RAW compression Sony employs can be visible. Also, if DxO is to be believed, A7 does not have the same noise advantage over MFT as for example Nikon FX have. So the theoretical 2 stop advantage from equivalence does not hold (at least according to DxO).

So again, why would I pay 1500 or 1600 EUR to get something that will deliver roughly the same image quality at best, but with heavier, larger, manual focus only, non-sealed kit? How does that make sense?

Sure, you can shoot it wide open and get distorted stars, soft image across the frame and deal with monstrous vignetting. But I don't need to spend 1600 EUR to compromise on quality, I can do that with SLR Magic 12mm T1.6 for 600 EUR.

Yes, it works, that's a good description. But if you want reasonably sharp photo, stars that are not commas and manageable vignetting, you need to shoot at f/2.8. Sharpness is actually not that essential for night sky photos (it's still nice to have it, thought), but -3 EV of vignetting and stars that are butterflies instead of points are not my definition of acceptable image quality when it comes to astrophotography. If it were, I would be raving about the Nokton 10.5/0.95, which for me, was the disappointment of the year (for exactly the same reasons your Samyang, along with other 24mm primes are useless wide open).

And I'm not saying that Samyang is a bad lens. 24mm from Canon, Nikon and Sigma are all equally useless for astro below f/2.8. At least Samyang is cheap.

So sorry, your proposition still does not make sense. Unless, of course, this Panasonic is as horrible wide open as all those 24mm primes. So far, doesn't look like it.

BTW, I don't understand why are you pushing this idea so hard. I saw that you did a fair share of night sky photography with a 24mm. None of your photos I saw were shot at wider than f/2, and it seems like you choose f/2.2 as your sweet spot. The stars in the corners are still distorted and corners are visibly darkened, but it looks fine on 1.5 megapixel images you publish online. So you know exactly what I'm talking about here.

The thing is, even if you shoot a m43 body with a lens @1.4 aperture, a FF body with same type of lens @f2.8 will usually have better results. Not big difference, but there's some. The dpreview article on "equivalency, why its matter" has section for "real-life impact" or something, and there you could see that even in situations where m43 has same equivalent light as FF, the FF would still have less noise. This could be a 1/3 or 2/3 difference, dunno.

And if we're talking bodies, there's indeed some sony bodies, but maybe D610 could be affordable too?

No matter how you slice it, it's going to be more expensive, larger, heavier and by the looks of it, not much better. What's the point? Why should anyone bother? Why do people scream "THIS IS SOOO EXPENSIVE" and then suggest even more expensive alternative? How does that make sense?

And I say "by the looks of it" because coma is the only thing not yet tested on that lens. I looked at few RAW files shot with it, and found nothing to complain except distortion. It's already been compared with other wide angle lenses for m43, and it's proven to be the best one released yet.

Generally, you can't have sharp corners with poorly handled coma, and corners on this one look good. That's a pretty good sign, so my hopes are up.

Oh, blimey. I assumed they would keep the 1300 price tag in Europe, just switch the currency, but we get the short end of the stick once again.

So okay. It's 1400 EUR (according to german press release), not 1300. Which sucks even more. As for being sold, it's not sold anywhere, the release is planned for August. Don't know why it's 1570 in your country, maybe scalpers looking for prey? I have not seen it listed in any shops yet.

I don't think ephotozine is to be believed, unless confirmed by other sources. Their results make no sense. They claim that distortion on the 12mm is nearly zero, when in reality it is rather severe and visible at first glance (before it gets corrected in JPEGs by the camera). And their insistence that at f/22 IQ is "fair" is quite ridiculous.

In their review of 100-400, the charts show that for example, at 400mm f/8, sharpness is even across the frame. Compare this with the results the guys at Lenstip got, which show up to 25% difference in sharpness between center and edges. This is as if they tested completely different lenses. You'd probably find more inconsistencies like that.

I don't know what's the methodology behind ephotozine tests, so it's kinda hard to take them seriously. For all we know, they might be testing those lenses with OOC JPEGs.

Instead of relying on this one review, I would suggest also looking at actual photos.

I have zero use for a 12 mm 1.4 because I want more area in focus not less when shooting a wide angle lens. However I am glad to see Panasonic and Olympus giving more options even if I would never buy this one lens. More is always better :)

I'm seriously struggling to see how it's a good idea to have a m43 lens weight as much as nikon 24mm f1.8 G , be of same size, and cost 2 times more also.

I mean sure, I can understand if it's "well the optics are good", but couldn't they've dropped the weight a bit by making it a f1.8 or f2? It's kind of like sigma and their Art lenses... I get they want to make good resolution lenses, but could those good resolution lenses not be f1.8 or f2, and thus be significantly lighter weight? Tamron has proven it's possible, and so has Batis. Sigmas are significantly more heavier than Batis, while the performance is about the same... I see no justification for that.

There's already a small 12mm f2 from Oly if that's what you want, great metal build still... Also somewhat overpriced but not hard to catch it on sale and refurb for substantially less. Failing that there's also a third party 12/2, albeit MF, and the 12-32 pancake isn't so shabby. This f1.4 isn't for you, but other M4/3 users will surely lap it up.

The system's ability to scale large and small is one of it's better assets, don't short change it by calling out what it can't/shouldn't do, embrace the fact that it can even if it's not for you... That core versatility was a big selling point for me.

Hey Impulses Pay attention to what I wrote won't you. In fact go read it again or maybe thirty more times until it sticks in your head. I clearly wrote it wasn't for me but that I was GLAD they are giving MORE OPTIONS. I even said more is better. Damn the reading comprehension levels on this form can be so kindergarten at times.

Yes Terry, maybe you should pay more attention... :p Sorry maybe i should've done the whole @ thing but I figured it'd be clear I was commenting on Lassoni's comment... You can't reply to sub replies here, I agree with your sentiment tho.

Cool lens, it rounds out Panasonic's "PL" f1.4 (or faster) lineup nicely, bit pricey but it is what it is, street price will surely come down... Same could (and can still) be said of the Oly 12mm, people underestimate the challenges in building a decent wide angle.

Personally, I would MUCH rather have seen a great, fast, sealed 17mm... The system now has 3-4 stellar 25mm, 2-3 stellar 12mm (even ignoring the 14 & 15mm), and only a couple somewhat compromised lenses near 17mm; none of which are sealed or faster than f1.7.

There were rumors swirling that Oly's f1.2 lineup would include a 12mm, 25mm, and 50mm; hopefully with this in the market they opt to make a 17mm before another 12mm.

OK - so I found the comparison I was after. This Pana 12 1.4 weighs 355g and costs 1300 dollars.The eqv Canon 24 2.8 for FF weighs 281g and costs 550 dollars. (B&H)The much faster eqv Nikon 24 1.8 for FF weighs 355g and costs 700 dollars.Fast primes simply seems to be weak point for small formats, and you have to pay a significant extra cost if you want to go there. And there is no size advantage - rather the opposite - despite the small sensor.

You can't compare it to a 2.8 or a 1.8 unless all you care about is DoF. It's a 1.4. Not everyone cares about FF equivalent DoF. This lens allows you to do video at a 180° shutter angle with less light than a 2.8. That's huge.

It's heavier, but the overall system size is still quite small. and most importantly it works on the G-Series. Seems like a this lens is a really versatile, albeit expensive, lens for the system.

If all you care about is DoF this isn't the lens for you. But if that's all you care about than M43 isn't for you either.

You make a good point in a general sense, PerL, but the first reviews for the Panasonic lens suggest that it has stellar image quality (see the CameraLabs review, and others). This is something that can't be said for the Nikon 24/1.8, for example. There's more to it than the old equivalence argument.

There is nothing wrong with either Canon or Nikon. And as I said earlier, what's the point to buy this lens let's say with the Pen-F for US 2500 when for the same money you can get a Nikon D750 and still have 1K for glass? Nonsense!

Cherry picking one of the more overpriced bodies with one of the newer/priciest (and somewhat overpriced) lenses makes the argument null... BUT it doesn't change the fact that either might STILL be appealing on it's own for someone already invested in the system. Frankly I think both should be closer to a grand if not exactly that, but I'd drop up to $1,500 for a fast sealed 18mm in an instant too.

Actually, there are lots of things wrong with both Nikon and Canon. For those of us interested in this lens primarily for astro landscapes, those big FF lenses are not all that impressive. They all need to be stopped down to f/2.8 to be usable, which mitigates most, if not all advantages of larger sensor. And for those of us that are fine with horrendous vignetting and distorted stars, there are much cheaper options available, no need for expensive FF gear.

And it's a different thing when you buy a new system and need to decide which way to go. You can go either way. But those people that use MFT cameras, choose that for a reason. They already have a camera body. Unless they plan to switch, there's no point in spending over $2000 for another camera instead of just $1300 for this one lens.

I saw Sony A7 series ML going throw similar debates - especially to those looking at the ML for its size/weight advantage the fast lens releases are hard to comprehend. But I don’t think there is a reason for much controversy here as the fast lenses just expand* small size orientated systems utility and versatility and although such a system will naturally gravitate around portable solutions it predominantly employs it doesn’t have to be limited* by them and can of course offer another option, be it just one specific fast lens someone is interested in alongside more typical kit. Just that a system is building on advantage of a particular design principles does not necessarily mean it must be strictly limited by them. Or are those MFT users forced to buy these fast lenses left with no other choice? I don’t think they are. Sony the same, e.g. 35/2.8 and f1.4 options* = f1.4 lens an added option to complete the system-characteristic f2.8 35.

$1300 for a m43 lens (even an excellent one) seems too high though. Lens prices usually seem to coincide with respective format. The apsc 12mm zeiss touit, for example, is only $699. Granted it's f2.8. The Fuji 16mm 1.4 is also $699.

Yes expensive but consider that Touit is not dust/splash proof and when announced its price was $1250 exl. VAT. MFT isn’t the best system for quality fast wide angles – but Panasonic does offer it, too, for a price and in high end style.

String - your comment is a perfect example of the blind devotion some people have to brands or specific products. It makes no sense to me. You even refer to yourself as "we m43 shooters". It's as if you have to be a part of a group to feel secure.

I personally couldn't care less about brand loyalty or being part of a 'club'. I just want the best IQ.

@ Terkwoiz - blind devotion? What are you even talking about? I have "blind devotion" to a mount because I don't go onto Nikon/Canon/Whatever discussions?Do tell... what colour is the sky in your world?

Ok ok, my bad. I do get it. I was on a bit of a ranting spree myself. I would actually like to try out an em5ii with the high-res mode. Looks pretty sweet. Also the built-in focus stacking of the Olympus cameras seems like great feature.

I think there's market for updated 100-300, since there's also a 75-300m2 . 100-400 is not same as the cheaper lenses. They can add better OIS for 100-300m2 and 75-300m3 if they want, people will buy them (they provide good value for the money after all).

I just don't think they're in a hurry to update the 100-300 ... not now that they have the more expensive 100-400 out.

The 100-300 is pretty much unsupported now for new capabilities (e.g. the dual IS feature on Pany bodies don't support the 100-300 lens), so it makes sense that they would update it ... I'm just not going to hold my breath!

Um, sure it will, you just need a plate that isn't so huge, there's a ton of them out there... I've bought like half a dozen small Arca plates from Kirk, Sirui, Jobu, and others. You can hit me up on the boards if you want some recommendations... I'm using the smallest Jobu (it's like 1" x 0'5" with my GM1 and a Sirui I got with a tripod with the OM-D, they'll work with anything, even a 100-300).

Thanks for the suggestions - will look them up.The tripod socket is way out to the front edge of the body. Actually it extends past the body. It's a problem. Hoping for a nice RRS plate / grip kind of thing

It's not a problem, trust me, the E-M5 II has a tripod socket that's sticking out the front edge as well and I have several plates that still fit with plenty of clearance while using even larger lenses. Some of the plates from the brands I mentioned also allow you to slide the plate back off center from the tripod thread, Desmond also has some that have like no edge lip whatsoever.

Like I said, if you hit me up with a PM I can help ya out with test-fit photos with different lenses etc. The tripod socket on the GX85 might stick out ever so slightly more than my OM-D's but we've got way larger lenses than the 12mm in the house too. I did get a RRS L/grip for my E-M5 II, even tho I found it rather pricey and i don't agree with their politics, but this was better designed than anything else out there as far as not interfering with the flip out screen.

I also liked that the grip part on the RRS L plate could be removed without a remaining protrusion. If I could've found a grip-less L plate (that was still custom made for the body) or the screen wasn't an issue (wouldn't be on the GX85 since it's a tilty) I would've gone with a much cheaper Chinese one off Amazon/eBay... Plenty of em are really well built, RRS's clever design earned them my $ tho (begrudgingly).

There's also a ladder shaped spacer from Nikon (and another from a brand I'm forgetting) that would work as a last resort, I had them bookmarked before I started to find plenty of tiny plates that'll work in just about any situation.

Seriously have you seen the GM1? I don't think you need a plate as tiny as the Jobu I've used on that body (the smallest they make), but that plate essentially has no front/back edge, it's like a C shape (pointing down).

It's a mess to drop links and model numbers on the comments tho so lemme know if you need any extra info, happy to help.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Nikon Z6 may not offer the incredible resolution of its sibling, the Z7, but its 24MP resolution is more than enough for most people, and the money saved can buy a lot of glass. Find out what's new and notable about the Z6 in our First Impressions Review.

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

The SiOnyx Aurora is a compact camera designed to shoot stills and video in color under low light conditions, so we put it to the test under the northern lights and against a Nikon D5. It may not be a replacement for a DSLR, but it can complement one well for some uses.

At its core, the Scanza is an easy-to-use multi-format film scanner. It offers a quick and easy way to scan your film negatives and slides into JPEGs, but costs a lot more than similar products without a Kodak label.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

Sony had the full-frame mirrorless market to itself for nearly five years, but it's no longer alone – the Nikon Z6 and Canon EOS R have both arrived priced to compete with the a7 III. We take a head to head to head look at these three cameras.

As if it needed one, the triple-camera smartphone might really be the final nail in the compact camera's coffin. DPR contributor Lars Rehm brought the LG V40 on a hiking trip recently and found it to be a huge leap forward in terms of creative freedom.

Renowned UK-based landscape photographer Nigel Danson has been using DSLRs for years. In this video, created exclusively for DPReview, Nigel discusses his experience using the Nikon Z7 and why he's excited about mirrorless cameras. (Spoiler... beautiful scenery ahead.)

Chinese optical manufacturer Kipon has added the Nikon Z and Canon R mounts to its range of adapters made to attach medium format lenses from Hasselblad, Mamiya, Pentax and others to full frame cameras.